1. The Rambam paskens that only wool and linen garments are chayav in tzitzis m'doraysa; cotton tzitzis (for example) are chayav only derabbanan (O.C. 9:1) . 2. One is allowed to wear kosher tzitzis on Shabbos because the string is bateil to the garment. Pasul tzitzis may not be worn because they serve no purpose and it is like carrying string. 3. One is allowed to wear cotton tzitzis on Shabbos. Even though the garment mid'oraysa does not need tzitzis, the chiyuv derabbanan of tzitzis makes them bateil to the garment. 4. The Shulchan Aruch (siman 10:7) writes that if there is a safeik d'oraysa whether a garment is chayav in tzitzis one must put tzitzis on the garments but it may not be worn in a public domain on Shabbos.
I asked my son this question (based on a Pri Megadim in O.C. 13): Why can a garment which is chayav only m'derabbanan in tzitzis be worn on Shabbos, but not a garment which requires tzitzis because of sfeika d'oraysa l'chumra? Even if sfeika d'orasya l'chumra is only a din derabbanan, why is this derabbanan obligation to put on tzitzis different than the case of cotton tzitzis?
I think there are at least two good answers...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Well, I'll lead with the obvious one - in the case of cotton tzitzis, there is no safek as to whether the garment requires tzitzis. It does, mid'rabanan, which means that on Shabbos, there's no safek as to whether the tzitzis are batel to the garment (and hence no issue of carrying)
ReplyDeleteFor a garment that only requires tzitzis misafek, on the other hand, that means there is a safek as to whether the tzitzis are batel and therefor a safek whether wearing them out on shabbos would be carrying. Hence safek drabanan lchumra requires that you not carry.
(Particularly since there's no competing chiyuv to wear the garment)
What's the second answer?
>>>that means there is a safek as to whether the tzitzis are batel
ReplyDeleteWhether or not the tzitzis are bateil is not an independent question, but is purely a function of whether or not there is a kiyum mitzvah to wear the tzitzis or not. Since sfeika d'orasya l'chumra is mechayeiv you to wear this beged with tzitzis, why would they not be bateil?
"Sfeika d'orasya l'chumra" means you must avoid an action which might violate a deoraita. If the safek garment has no tzitit, "avoidance" dictates you must not put it on. If the garment has tzitzit, "avoidance" dictates that you must not wear it on Shabbat.
ReplyDeleteRemember that sewing (?) tzitit onto the garment is not a mitzvah, it just enables a future mitzvah. But if the garment in fact doesn't require tzitzit, sewing might instead enable a future averah.
I had a thought that might help reframe the question.
ReplyDeleteI have no problem with the case of a cotton begged. After all, the issue is whether the wearer is considering the tzitzis part of the begged. We have cases of bitul to the garment that have nothing to do with chiyuvim -- such as the decorative buttons on a double-breasted suit.
Where things get hazy for me is why in the safeiq de'oraisa lehachmir case the tzitzios are not beteilim. Even if kelapei shemaya galya they are redundant, why isn't the fact that to him they are necessary enough to consider them a mere extension of the garment?
To put it another way, RCB writes in the followup comment, "Whether or not the tzitzis are bateil is not an independent question, but is purely a function of whether or not there is a kiyum mitzvah to wear the tzitzis or not." Why? If buttons don't require a qiyum mitzvah to justify their presence, why do tzitzis?
If I knew that why, I would know why the safeiq de'oraisa tzitzis are excluded.
Rather than seeing the question as a chiluq between derabbanan and safeiq de'oraisa, I have a feeling it's more related to the difference between buttons and loose buttons.
-micha
-micha
if lo tasur is medoraisa then all is good
ReplyDeleteWhether or not the tzitzis are bateil is not an independent question, but is purely a function of whether or not there is a kiyum mitzvah to wear the tzitzis or not. Since sfeika d'orasya l'chumra is mechayeiv you to wear this beged with tzitzis, why would they not be bateil?
ReplyDeleteBecause (and I'm extrapolating here) what this tells you is that safek d'oraysa isn't a one time rule that creates a chalos shaym of "tzitzis" in the beged, which then governs future action (i.e. it is not the case that at the moment the garment is made or purchased, you are faced with the question "does it require tzitzis", safek d'oraysa tells you yes, and from that point forward it is no longer a safek, but a beged that requires tzitzis by application of the rule of safek d'oraysa)
Rather, safek d'oraysa lchumra is an action determinant and nothing more; it does not create a chalos shaym in the garment, merely directs you in how to act given the safek each and every second. And "how to act given the safek" will change based on the circumstances. During chol, the answer is "put on tzitzis", because the only question for which there's a safek is "is the beged chayav in tzitzis". Safek doraysa lchumra thus requires that tzitzis be applied.
On shabbos, on the other hand, there's a second question generated by the safek: can I wear this beged, with tzitzis, without carrying. To that question, safek d'oraysa lchumra requires that the answer be "no"
And a proof for this - note that the maskana is not that you can wear the garment b'rabbim without tzitzis (which would be the case if you held that the safek of shabbos was completely docheh the safek of tzitzis). Rather, you cannot wear the garment outside at all. Why? Because safek d'oraysa lchumra requires both that the garment have tzitzis and, when it does have tzitzis, that you cannot 'carry' them by wearing the beged brshus harabbim.
At least, that's how I'd approach it
But Akiva, bittul of decorative buttons doesn't require qiyum mitzvah. So why suddenly by tzitzis do we require that he knows for sure he is meqayeim something? I am arguing that we see from other examples (such as that row of decoration-only buttons on a double-breasted suit) that bitul revolves around the wearer's attitude, not qiyum.
ReplyDeleteThinking out loud an idea that just occurred to me: I think the chiluq between buttons and tzitzis is that I am wearing the jacket for the jacket, and the buttons are clearly adjunct to the jacket. I am not wearing my tallis qatan for its own sake, and the tzitzis adjunct to it -- I'm wearing it for a chance to wear tzitzis.
And therefore I reverse my question: how does one ever invoke bittul of the primary point of wearing the begged to the rest of the begged? (Unlike before, where I wondered how it is ever a problem.)
But it still doesn't explain why my intent about which is ikkar and which is tafeil would depend on whether I'm wearing it mishum safeiq or for a vadai qiyum. The whole chiluq being made has nothing to do with the general grounds for bitul across the dinim of hotza'ah.
-micha
Micha,
ReplyDeleteTzitzis are not batel to the beged because they are a kiyum mitzva; tzitzis are batel to the beged because, due to the fact that they are required by the mitzva, they are considered a part of the beged rather than something extraneous which is merely attached to the beged.
That they are considered integral rather than extraneous as a result of the fact that they are a kiyum mitzvah doesn't render the kiyum mitzvah aspect the essence. The integrity to the garment is the essence.
With that said, you look at decorative buttons, and what you see is that they are also integral to the garment (not out of function, but because they are meant to be attached to the garment as decorations to the garment).
Tzitzis, on the other hand, have no function vis a vis the garment except to the extent that the beged is chayav in tzitzis. If the beged is not chayav in tzitzis (if, say, I attached tzitzis to my raincoat), then the tzitzis are extraneous, and not battel to the beged. My intent is irrelevant.
Given that, the question, with respect to any beged plus tzitzis, is whether the beged is chayav in tzitzis. If yes, then the tzitzis are integral to the garment and therefore batel; if no, then the tzitzis are a mere appendage and not batel. As such, where there is a safek, the principal of safek d'oraysa lchumra requires us to not wear the beged brabbim, on the assumption that doing so would be carrying.
Chaim - what answers did you have in mind?
ReplyDelete1. Bitul to the beged is because either (A) it's mekayem a mitzvah or because (B) you can't wear the beged without it.
ReplyDeleteIf (A), the difference is this: Tzitzis Derabanan are vadai chayav. Safek Deoraysa cases are not vadai chayav: you are just prohibited from taking the gamble; if you gamble and lose, you were mevatel the mitzva. That's why you wouldn't make a bracha on such tzitzis.
If (B), you have the alternative there is always the alternative of being makneh the beged to someone else, or being mafkir it, thereby avoiding any chiyuv tzitzis. Since you can wear the beged without Tzitzis, it's not bateil to teh beged. If, however, you are vadai chayav, being makneh/mafkir is itself a bittul asei.
2. Akiva #1
Another nafka minah is whether a woman can wear a beged metzuyetzes on Shabbos in Reshus Harabbim. If (A), then only Ashkenazim would allow it. If (B), then even for Ashkenazim it would be assur.
ReplyDeleteAkiva, I don't know how to address your latest response without repeating myself. So if this doesn't add anything, I'm sorry.
ReplyDeleteI don't see where hilkhos tzitzis matter. The ikkar of bitul the person's attitude toward the add-on in relation to the begged. The begged has an add-on, but it's just part of the begged, so it's worn if the begged is. That's the point of bitul, right? I tried illustrating that idea by comparing it to decorative buttons on a double-breasted suit, where there is no halachic motivation to wear them, they serve no pragmatic role on the jacket, and yet they are be beteilim to the jacket because we think of them as part of the jacket.
Whether it's midin safeiq or derabbanan, he is wearing the tzitzis in the same relationship to the begged. Let's even assume that kelapei Shemaya galya that I don't need the tzitzis. Why would wearing tzitzis derabbanan or buttons for decoration make the tzitzis more an accoutrement to the begged than wearing them because I mistakenly thought I had to?
Then, to add to the confusion, I threw in a 2nd question. Tzitzis (for any reason) is different than buttons because I'm only wearing the tallis qatan in order to have an excuse for the tzitzis. How then can they be beteilim even if there was a vadai chiyuv deOraisa? As far as the wearer is concerned, they are the ikkar! Why are tzitzis allowed bireshus harabbim altogether? Why don't we say we should take off all 4 cornered garment when "leaving the eiruv"?
-micha
ReplyDeleteWhether it's midin safeiq or derabbanan, he is wearing the tzitzis in the same relationship to the begged. Let's even assume that kelapei Shemaya galya that I don't need the tzitzis. Why would wearing tzitzis derabbanan or buttons for decoration make the tzitzis more an accoutrement to the begged than wearing them because I mistakenly thought I had to?
Micha, I think what you have to deduce is the following:
1) The only reason I would wear tzitzis on a beged is if the beged is chayav in tzitzis
2) If the beged is not chayav in tzitzis, therefore, the tzitzis serve no function in relation to the beged. They aren't there for decoration, they are completely useless and extraneous to the beged. Objectively, that remains the case even if, subjectively, I (wrongly) think the beged requires tzitzis.
Therefore, we see from this that:
3) Bittul to the beged is determined on the basis of an objective, not subjective inquiry. Even if I think the buttons on my suit are ugly and would prefer not to have them on, objectively, they are there as decoration and therefore objectively a part of the beged. In contrast, even if I think that a garment is chayav in tzitzis, if I am wrong, then objectively, the tzitzis are extraneous to the beged and not batel.
Micha, question - would you agree that someone who put tzitzis on a raincoat because they (wrongly) thought the tzitzis were required, and went out on shabbos, was over a lav b'shogeg? It seems clear that he was - the tzitzis are not batel to a rain coat, even though subjectively he thinks they are required.
Akiva: "The only reason I would wear tzitzis on a beged is if the beged is chayav in tzitzis." You're restating the point I'm questioning without justifying it.
ReplyDeleteYou would wear tzitzis on the beged because you have a safeiq deOraisa if you are chayav. The issue with bittul is my motivation for wearing them. My motivation is the doubt, not the reality (which might be one way or the other). You're dealing with the hypothetical halakhah if the doubt were resolved. But doesn't bitul deal with the real attitude of the wearer, which includes the fact that the doubt isn't resolved?
Therefore, when you conclude: "Bittul to the beged is determined on the basis of an objective, not subjective inquiry. Even if I think the buttons on my suit are ugly and would prefer not to have them on, objectively, they are there as decoration and therefore objectively a part of the beged."
I would say that your conclusion is inherent in this first assumption, and I don't understand the sevara of that assumption.
Besides, ugly buttons are still worn as part of the begged. Also, you are using "objective" in two different ways. Most people would consider this decorative, so your own opinion doesn't matter -- if I agreed that decorative buttons that fail to decorate were any less part of the begged. Similarly, most informed people would consider this a safeiq deOraisa lechumrah. The parallel would be the guy who thinks that this begged doesn't need tzitzis, despite following the accepted pesaq of worrying for the safeiq.
"[W]ould you agree that someone who put tzitzis on a raincoat because they (wrongly) thought the tzitzis were required, and went out on shabbos, was over a lav b'shogeg?"
I would agree because I know my line of reasoning is wrong. What I don't get is why. Bitul means that I'm wearing X as part of Y, which I am in both cases. (Although why it's not Y in order to wear X is also beyond me.)
-micha
Micha,
ReplyDeleteI think this is where you run up against the difference between "why" and "what". The "what" is clearly that bittul is determined without regard to the subjective intent of the wearer (hence, in both the raincoat and the safek case, that my intent is to wear them as tzitzis is irrelevant). As to why that might be . . . its simply impossible to say.
Well, it would make sense, since my background in lomdus centers around R' Dovid Lifshitz and thus R' Shimon Shkop's version of Telzher derekh, that I expect a sevara to answer "fahr vos", not just "vos".
ReplyDeleteBTW, another button example. The extra buttons sown onto a shirt as spares in case you need a replacement. Shirt buttons are unimportant, and therefore batul to the shirt. Buttons that are harder to come by, say fancy ones as spares for a coat, are allowed by R' SZ Aurbach (as recorded in Shemiras Shabbos keHilchasah), but not by everyone.
They serve no purpose. But since they are worn tefeilim to the garment, they are beteilim to it. A clear case of defining bitul by the intent of the typical wearer. (If not this particular one.)
-micha